On 2023/7/12 01:50, Simon Horman wrote:
- struct sock *sk = (struct sock *)chan->private;
+ struct sock *sk = chan->private;
struct pppox_sock *po = pppox_sk(sk);
struct net_device *dev = po->pppoe_dev;
Hi,
Please don't break reverse xmas tree ordering - longest line to shortest -
of local variable declarations in Networking code.
Hi,
This can't be reversed because it depends on the first declaration.
Should I change it like this?
- struct sock *sk = (struct sock *)chan->private;
- struct pppox_sock *po = pppox_sk(sk);
+ struct pppox_sock *po = pppox_sk(chan->private);
struct net_device *dev = po->pppoe_dev;
+ struct sock *sk = chan->private;
But this seems to be bad. As the advice of Andrew[1] and Dan[2]:
"
When dealing with existing broken reverse Christmas tree, please don't
make it worse with a change. But actually fixing it should be in a
different patch.
We want patches to be obviously correct. By removing the cast and
moving variables around, it is less obvious it is correct, than having
two patches.
"
Wu Yunchuan
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/23e98085-8f07-4ee2-8487-8e3b439b69f4@xxxxxxx/
[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/45519aec-6ec8-49e5-b5b2-1b52d336288c@kadam.mountain/
